Oh, you\u2019ve felt it, too…<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Enough of it!\u00a0 We\u2019re through already!\u00a0 Politics, schmolitics…<\/em><\/p>\n <\/p>\n I am certain more than just a few of us are sick of the election cycle.\u00a0 It hasn\u2019t always been this way; it doesn\u2019t have to be this way; and I pray it won\u2019t remain this way.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Interestingly, I hear my more conservative-leaning friends blame the current president for this seemingly sad state of affairs.\u00a0 I hear my more liberal-leaning friends blame his predecessor.\u00a0 As a semi-humble current events observer (emphasis on the \u201csemi\u201d),<\/em> I suggest that neither is wholly responsible; each administration has at times embraced divisive rhetoric and employed intentional negativity to pursue their desired end goal, but the Intramuralist\u2019s clear sense is that Presidents Obama and Bush 42 only added to the increasingly, polarized state \u2014 a state that has many of us turning off the news, avoiding our Facebook accounts, and wondering how in the world we will unify after one more election.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n As shared previously amidst these postings, the Intramuralist believes the seeds of polarization were sewn decades ago.\u00a0 The majority of my belief was discerned when reading, Common Ground,<\/em> a book co-authored by the very liberal Bob Beckel and very conservative Cal Thomas.\u00a0 Endorsed by both the now deceased, liberal George McGovern and conservative Jack Kemp, Common Ground<\/em> encourages each of us to (1) end partisanship, and thus (2) \u201csave America.\u201d\u00a0 The book is insightful, especially for those of us whose blood continues to boil as we watch the Washington wrangling intensify.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Beckel and Thomas contend this corrosive culture began in the 1970\u2018s.\u00a0 According to the authors…<\/p>\n <\/p>\n The size of the federal government grew under both Democratic and Republican presidents.\u00a0 These new agencies and departments created a substantial increase in government rules and regulations, impacting citizens and businesses alike.\u00a0 The growth of governments produced cadres of political activists who would descend on Washington, demanding (and getting) access to policy makers.\u00a0 Activists working for change were countered by an increase in the number of people who worked to protect the status quo.\u00a0 The result was a tenfold increase in the number of lobbyists and lawyers…<\/em><\/p>\n <\/p>\n Something else happened on Carter\u2019s watch that would feed polarization.\u00a0 Congress, especially the House, began to change the structure of committees.\u00a0 Important committees, including Ways and Means and Appropriations, established subcommittees with new chairmen.\u00a0 New subcommittees meant more staffers and congressional hearings, which meant more lobbyists and special-interest groups would descend on Washington.<\/em><\/p>\n <\/p>\n These activists, lawyers, lobbyists, and special-interest groups possess personal motivations in regard to singular agendas.\u00a0 Polarization keeps their agenda alive.\u00a0 The problem is that it also promotes skewed perspective.\u00a0 Ask Presidents Clinton and Bush 42, who, according to Common Ground,<\/em> served as \u201cPolarization\u2019s Poster Children.\u201d\u00a0 Ask Ann Coulter and Arianna Huffington, whose careers have thrived on it.\u00a0 Ask Rush Limbaugh and David Axelrod, who daily employ it.\u00a0 Or ask Robert Bork, whose career was derailed by it.\u00a0 Again, according to our liberal and conservative authors:<\/p>\n <\/p>\n The Bork battle [Reagan\u2019s 2nd nominee for the Supreme Court] rewrote the rules for future nominees.\u00a0 No longer were a potential jurist\u2019s qualifications paramount; ideology and personal issues were now fair game.\u00a0 After Bork, no Supreme Court nominee would be as candid in confirmation hearings as Bork had been.\u00a0 The Bork defeat, as much as any other event, helped launch a new era of \u201cthe politics of personal destruction.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n <\/p>\n My point this day is that while Obama and Bush have embraced the division \u2014 in order to fuel their own election \u2014 the intensifying [and dare I suggest, foolish] division was not initiated by either.\u00a0 They have perhaps used and abused the situation, although it did not start with them.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Politics, schmolitics…<\/em><\/p>\n <\/p>\n I\u2019ll go back to turning off the news, avoiding my Facebook account, and yes, wondering how in the world we will unify after this election.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Respectfully,<\/p>\n AR<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Oh, you\u2019ve felt it, too… Enough of it!\u00a0 We\u2019re through already!\u00a0 Politics, schmolitics… I am certain more than just a few of us are sick of the election cycle.\u00a0 It hasn\u2019t always been this way; it doesn\u2019t have to be this way; and I pray it won\u2019t remain this way. Interestingly, I … <\/p>\n